the advent of hybrid golf clubs in the last few years has made me wonder why two completely different club designs (irons vs. woods) existed in the first place. could someone please explain from a physics perspective why this is so?
irons have shorter shafts, and so it's easier to make good contact with the ball. but the longer shafts on woods result in more clubhead speed, and hence more distance.
woods have a bulbous faring on the backside of the face plate, leading to a lower center of gravity and higher moment of inertia. these are both good things, so why would you give them up with a blade design for an iron? what do you gain for their relative lack of forgiveness?
perhaps the two designs are just a historical artifact that is on the verge of being corrected by modern materials? woods made of metal first appeared in the 70s. now hybrids, combining a short shaft with a bulbous head, are on the rise in the 00s. cleveland golf with their hibore irons and tour edge with their bazooka jmax QL iron woods are pushing "progressive sole widths", in which there is a SMOOTH transition from an iron-like design for the lob wedge to a wood-like appearance for the 1 iron. is it just a matter of time before such sets are made to professional-grade standards and include lofts and shaft lengths equivalent to a driver?
please help! i just want to understand why there should be such drastic design differences between neighboring clubs (e.g. a 5 wood and a 3 iron).
thanks,
ben